Re: [Re: DC-WG: Declarational versus Executional ConstraintLanguages]

Vassilios Gerousis (vassilios.gerousis@hl.siemens.de)
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:01:28 +0100 (MET)

Dear New Members,
The discussion about the start of DCWG+SLDA have been discussed
before and has been voted on by both the DCWG and OVI board (the owner)
of the standard.

Initial discussion with Synopsys by DCWG and the normal process of
OPEN AND PUBLICLY OWNED strawman were discussed at multiple meetings
and voted on. As a normal process of OVI, we will deal with OPEN
and publicly owned standard.

Also, the decision to go with Ambit (Cadence) and the offer from IBM
of Einstimer are the primary sources for our language. We should
concentrate on these only. If Synopsys wants to donate their language
with no license and no conditions, then there is a formal process to do
so.

I hope our efforts should concentrate on how to move forward and NOT
backward. Members of SLDA, need to know that a process has been followed
and Synopsys was given all chances to contribute.

Let us make progress based on Cadence and hopefully IBM.

Best Regards

Vassilios
OVI Technical Chairman
-------------------------------------------------


> From owner-dcwg@eda.org Thu Dec 17 14:44 MET 1998
> X-Envelope-Sender-Is: owner-dcwg@eda.org (at relayer david.siemens.de)
> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to
owner-dcwg@eda.org using -f
> To: dcwg@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [Re: DC-WG: Declarational versus Executional ConstraintLanguages]
> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:21:11 -0500
> From: Bob Dilly <dilly@btv.ibm.com>
>
> You got me thinking, Dave, about "contamination" too.
> Something we work at being attentive to here. I'm not
> an attorney, but I get concerned when asked to even
> "review" intellectual property that's related to the
> area I am working in.
>
> If Synopsys charges for access to their standard, then
> one should be careful about separating such access from
> work on the DC-WG standard, lest it become "encumbered".
> There seems to be consensus that its desirable for the
> standard to be freely available- a topic of some discussion
> with regard to the Cadence donation.
>
> Perhaps it would be best to let Synopsys compare the
> direction of DC-WG versus Synopsys Design Constraints (SDC)
> until the legal implications are understood.
>
> Sorry, Ibna.
>
> Respectfully...... Bob
>
>
>
> >Ibna, you write:
> >
> > The web site shows a list price for Liberty (Synopsys
> > Logic Design Library format) license for EDA vendors
> > that do not wish to trade formats. Synopsys customers
> > are already licensed for liberty. We do not license
> > (SDF or Liberty) the joint committee, but the rather
> > each individual member company. It's likely that most or
> > all members are already licensed.
> >
> >Certainly AverStar is not, and I suspect that the University of
> >Cincinatti is not. This rather restricts our ability to review and
> >reflect on the syntax others are discussing.
> >
> > Dave Barton <*>
> > dlb@averstar.com )0(
> > http://www.averstar.com/~dlb
> >